Interesting bit: when I worked in DoD, I had a colleague (a native Chinese speaker) who said that the Chinese documents indicated that in Korea, they assumed we were tied to the roads because we were mechanized, and trucks were too valuable to us to leave behind in a retreat. They thought that they'd be able to encircle the entirety of UN forces, including the US, by taking the faster overland routes. They were surprised that we were willing to flee overland and abandon such rare equipment.

Apparently, they didn't appreciate just how disposable we viewed our mechanized assets to be.

Subtle_Canary:When the Korean War kicked off it was a UN free for all against a nation that had just been bent over a table by the Japanese. It didnt become a real issue until HERE COMES A NEW CHALLENGER happened that drove us out.

The Numbers:LasersHurt: Is it just me, or are some of these regional powers completely and totally unaware of how farked they'd be if they started a major war?

It's either that they're completely ignorant of their own capabilities and those of others, OR they know and are using rhetoric in the hopes it never comes to that.

Futilely attempting to establish a 'red line', if you will?

At least we have a history and the hardware to back it up, and the good sense to be vague. There's a gulf between their statements and the "red line" comment in terms of stated intent and capacity to follow through.

I'm not sure if I should take his line about the US not having any proof about his regime launching the CWs as a good thing or not. Does this mean that they have proof that the rebels launched the attack? Or is he just hoping that by never coming out and saying "we did it" then it MUST mean that the CWs launched out of the blue and no reason can be found? Because someone pulled that trigger. The gun is already smoking, the only question is who's finger was on the trigger? Assad's, or the rebels? It can't be nobodies fault. Either one of his people did it or one of the rebels did it. Wouldn't you think he would be just as interested in finding the truth as the US is? I mean he said it himself, his own military got gassed, too. If someone acted alone, why not find them? Find out who told them to if they didn't act alone? Gimme a farking break here! If a lone person in the military launched a CW attack that harmed not only civilians, but military personnel, in the continental US, we would have known who was fully responsible by the end of the week. What makes them not want to find out? I'm not saying Assad is "guilty" of this, but it sure as fark looks like he is from where I'm sitting.

Thunderpipes:I don't get it. What has Syria done that Iraq didn't do? Why would this be desired, but the evil Bush slapping Iraq be bad? I mean, we either stay out of it, or we don't, right?

In a nutshell: Last year Obama said in his infamous "red-line" statement, that if they were caught using chemical weapons there would be immediate and severe consequences. He painted himself into a corner right there. Fast-Forward to two weeks ago. The Obama administration's own intelligence confirmed that the Syrian Government had indeed used chemical weapons on citizens. But instead of making good on his promise he's now deferring to congress. The same congress he ran-around every chance he got to get health care approved. Meanwhile? He's the commander-in-chief and does not require congressional approval to act on Syria. In other words, he's passing the buck because he's too spineless to make his own decision on this. Circumventing the Constitution by issuing executive orders is easy for him to do when there are no International consequences. This one ain't so easy because people will die, and he's already won the Nobel Peace Price for no reason at all. But I'll bet he'll do it even without congressional approval because his ego is such that he couldn't live with himself if he perceives he's 'lost' at anything more than a family friendly game of Monopoly.

Interesting bit: when I worked in DoD, I had a colleague (a native Chinese speaker) who said that the Chinese documents indicated that in Korea, they assumed we were tied to the roads because we were mechanized, and trucks were too valuable to us to leave behind in a retreat. They thought that they'd be able to encircle the entirety of UN forces, including the US, by taking the faster overland routes. They were surprised that we were willing to flee overland and abandon such rare equipment.

Apparently, they didn't appreciate just how disposable we viewed our mechanized assets to be.

Most countries have made that mistake against the US. German POWs knew Germany was screwed when they got to Cleveland, and realized fighting both Japan and Germany hadn't affected the American home front at all.

Fart_Machine:ferretman: You can't bomb the chemical weapons as you will only spread the material all over. Conventional weapons do not produce enough heat to destroy them. You'd only cause a bunch of deadly chemical clouds (which no one could see) and they would be carried on the wind. CW/Bio's need special processing facilties to be destroyed or a nuke.

AllYourFarkAreBelongToMe:Thunderpipes: I don't get it. What has Syria done that Iraq didn't do? Why would this be desired, but the evil Bush slapping Iraq be bad? I mean, we either stay out of it, or we don't, right?

In a nutshell: Last year Obama said in his infamous "red-line" statement, that if they were caught using chemical weapons there would be immediate and severe consequences. He painted himself into a corner right there. Fast-Forward to two weeks ago. The Obama administration's own intelligence confirmed that the Syrian Government had indeed used chemical weapons on citizens. But instead of making good on his promise he's now deferring to congress. The same congress he ran-around every chance he got to get health care approved. Meanwhile? He's the commander-in-chief and does not require congressional approval to act on Syria. In other words, he's passing the buck because he's too spineless to make his own decision on this. Circumventing the Constitution by issuing executive orders is easy for him to do when there are no International consequences. This one ain't so easy because people will die, and he's already won the Nobel Peace Price for no reason at all. But I'll bet he'll do it even without congressional approval because his ego is such that he couldn't live with himself if he perceives he's 'lost' at anything more than a family friendly game of Monopoly.

3/10.

Starts out ok but deteriorates into rambling derpage. Try being a bit more concise in future.

AllYourFarkAreBelongToMe: He made a blanket statement (never a good idea) last year. And no. Even if congress wont give him approval, he's gonna act. His ego will allow nothing less. Did you forget that this guy spent nearly his entire first term doing nothing other than performing end-runs to get his beloved health-care plan rammed down the throats of the American people though the majority wanted none of it? You mark my words. Even without approval he's gonna do something. I mean? What else is a Nobel Peace Prize winner supposed to do other than start another war under these circumstances? Besides when all's said and done he'll just figure out a way to blame it on Bush and 90% of Fark will back him up on the claim. Now THAT would be brilliant. :-)

Yes, he rammed healthcare down your throat. Now suck it! Suck on the misery of being able to afford medical treatment! Isn't it humiliating?

optional:If Assad wins, there will be massive death and destruction. Iran's primary national ally in the region will remain intact, and will be more likely than before to screw around with its neighbors. The US and Europe will look foolish, indecisive, and weak.

If the rebels win, there will be massive death and destruction as the fanatics wipe out every Alawite, Christian, and Shi'ite they can find (which may turn into yet another civil war). Al-Qaeda will likely gain a new regional stronghold, and even if they don't, it will likely be a place that Saudi Arabia grooms into being another backwards theocracy. The help offered by the West will soon be forgotten as fanatics take control.

AllYourFarkAreBelongToMe:Thunderpipes: I don't get it. What has Syria done that Iraq didn't do? Why would this be desired, but the evil Bush slapping Iraq be bad? I mean, we either stay out of it, or we don't, right?

In a nutshell: Last year Obama said in his infamous "red-line" statement, that if they were caught using chemical weapons there would be immediate and severe consequences. He painted himself into a corner right there. Fast-Forward to two weeks ago. The Obama administration's own intelligence confirmed that the Syrian Government had indeed used chemical weapons on citizens. But instead of making good on his promise he's now deferring to congress. The same congress he ran-around every chance he got to get health care approved. Meanwhile? He's the commander-in-chief and does not require congressional approval to act on Syria. In other words, he's passing the buck because he's too spineless to make his own decision on this. Circumventing the Constitution by issuing executive orders is easy for him to do when there are no International consequences. This one ain't so easy because people will die, and he's already won the Nobel Peace Price for no reason at all. But I'll bet he'll do it even without congressional approval because his ego is such that he couldn't live with himself if he perceives he's 'lost' at anything more than a family friendly game of Monopoly.

Keeping the ball in the air as long as possible keeps pressure on the Syrian military to split with the regime. Kicking it to congress is a way to do that. Or it could be the monopoly game thing, sure.

Abe Vigoda's Ghost:"Someone who makes accusations needs proof," Assad said,"We challenged the U.S. and France to show us proof. Mr. Obama and Hollande were incapable even when asked to do so by their own peoples."

"Everyone will lose control of the situation when the powder keg explodes, chaos and extremism will be widespread. The risk of a regional war exists."

He actually sounds pretty reasonable to me.

Same here. If he weren't in the middle of a civil war, I'd be pretty impressed. The ME is an explosion waiting to happen, and we do need proof that it was Assad himself who used weapons (seriously. UN inspectors. They have a job. Let them farking do it).

However, when a civil war arises, I tend to think whoever's in charge is a) an asshole, b) incompetent, or c) both. So there's that.

Billy Bathsalt:AllYourFarkAreBelongToMe: Thunderpipes: I don't get it. What has Syria done that Iraq didn't do? Why would this be desired, but the evil Bush slapping Iraq be bad? I mean, we either stay out of it, or we don't, right?

In a nutshell: Last year Obama said in his infamous "red-line" statement, that if they were caught using chemical weapons there would be immediate and severe consequences. He painted himself into a corner right there. Fast-Forward to two weeks ago. The Obama administration's own intelligence confirmed that the Syrian Government had indeed used chemical weapons on citizens. But instead of making good on his promise he's now deferring to congress. The same congress he ran-around every chance he got to get health care approved. Meanwhile? He's the commander-in-chief and does not require congressional approval to act on Syria. In other words, he's passing the buck because he's too spineless to make his own decision on this. Circumventing the Constitution by issuing executive orders is easy for him to do when there are no International consequences. This one ain't so easy because people will die, and he's already won the Nobel Peace Price for no reason at all. But I'll bet he'll do it even without congressional approval because his ego is such that he couldn't live with himself if he perceives he's 'lost' at anything more than a family friendly game of Monopoly.

Keeping the ball in the air as long as possible keeps pressure on the Syrian military to split with the regime. Kicking it to congress is a way to do that. Or it could be the monopoly game thing, sure.

Or keeping the ball in the air gives everyone time to get the fark out of dodge or bunker down, lock and load and hide a few unmentionables.

That's because GHW Bush had strong influence over them and talked them out of joining in lest the other Arab nations pull out of the coalition and he promised that he would punish Saddam for it (road of death anyone?). Obama definitely doesn't have the same amount of pull with Israel as he did and unless he offers to strike back at anyone who attacks them there's no possible way that they won't do it themselves and there's some doubt that they would listen or trust Obama to follow through anyway. If anyone lobs anything at Israel I wouldn't expect the same results as 1991.

ciberido:AllYourFarkAreBelongToMe: He made a blanket statement (never a good idea) last year. And no. Even if congress wont give him approval, he's gonna act. His ego will allow nothing less. Did you forget that this guy spent nearly his entire first term doing nothing other than performing end-runs to get his beloved health-care plan rammed down the throats of the American people though the majority wanted none of it? You mark my words. Even without approval he's gonna do something. I mean? What else is a Nobel Peace Prize winner supposed to do other than start another war under these circumstances? Besides when all's said and done he'll just figure out a way to blame it on Bush and 90% of Fark will back him up on the claim. Now THAT would be brilliant. :-)

Yes, he rammed healthcare down your throat. Now suck it! Suck on the misery of being able to afford medical treatment! Isn't it humiliating?

"Now suck it!"

And there we have another well informed ad-hom attack from a typical Farker who wants something for nothing, believes it's actually possible, and projects his miserable life onto others. Expertly done!

cirrhosis_and_halitosis:vygramul: cirrhosis_and_halitosis:That's with a limited air strike, which is the match that lights the fuse. You are underestimating the situation.

Nope. I have history on my side.

Ahhh, that's right. Libya was a cakewalk therefore Syria will be the exact same situation.

Not a lot of cases of the US bombing someone and not putting boots on the ground that resulted in a larger conflict, even in more volatile situations. Yugoslavia was a way better traditional ally of Russia. Yet an extensive, months-long campaign and the Russians sat there like biatches. No way they give more of a shiat about non-slavic peoples.

vygramul:cirrhosis_and_halitosis: vygramul: cirrhosis_and_halitosis:That's with a limited air strike, which is the match that lights the fuse. You are underestimating the situation.

Nope. I have history on my side.

Ahhh, that's right. Libya was a cakewalk therefore Syria will be the exact same situation.

Not a lot of cases of the US bombing someone and not putting boots on the ground that resulted in a larger conflict, even in more volatile situations. Yugoslavia was a way better traditional ally of Russia. Yet an extensive, months-long campaign and the Russians sat there like biatches. No way they give more of a shiat about non-slavic peoples.

Can't help but notice how nobody here on fark will acknowledge that Obama stepped on his own dick. Ya'll are about as 'fair and balanced' as Fox. Just so ya know.

AllYourFarkAreBelongToMe:vygramul: cirrhosis_and_halitosis: vygramul: cirrhosis_and_halitosis:That's with a limited air strike, which is the match that lights the fuse. You are underestimating the situation.

Nope. I have history on my side.

Ahhh, that's right. Libya was a cakewalk therefore Syria will be the exact same situation.

Not a lot of cases of the US bombing someone and not putting boots on the ground that resulted in a larger conflict, even in more volatile situations. Yugoslavia was a way better traditional ally of Russia. Yet an extensive, months-long campaign and the Russians sat there like biatches. No way they give more of a shiat about non-slavic peoples.

Can't help but notice how nobody here on fark will acknowledge that Obama stepped on his own dick. Ya'll are about as 'fair and balanced' as Fox. Just so ya know.

CaH and I have been discussing this in a non-partisan manner. Our conversation is not interested in the petty political points.

That's because GHW Bush had strong influence over them and talked them out of joining in lest the other Arab nations pull out of the coalition and he promised that he would punish Saddam for it (road of death anyone?). Obama definitely doesn't have the same amount of pull with Israel as he did and unless he offers to strike back at anyone who attacks them there's no possible way that they won't do it themselves and there's some doubt that they would listen or trust Obama to follow through anyway. If anyone lobs anything at Israel I wouldn't expect the same results as 1991.

As Obama himself might put it, the calculus has changed.

I think that Saudi Arabia would also be a target, possibly from Iran.

The first US targets in Syria would be air defenses and missile batteries. At that point it becomes a 'use it or lose' it situation for Syria. Why not bring some pain on, Israel, your mortal enemy? It's less than 150 miles from Damascus to Tel Aviv.

Hezbollah has to also think it would be a target, if only from an 'oops' missile meant for Syria. They would love nothing more than rain some missiles on Israel.

"As for his response to a potential military strike on his country, Assad compared the Middle East to a "powder keg" and told Le Figaro that a first strike from the West could prompt responses from other corners of the region." - FTA

The Middle East, we all know and love, is a "powder keg"? Say it ain't so.

The first US targets in Syria would be air defenses and missile batteries. At that point it becomes a 'use it or lose' it situation for Syria. Why not bring some pain on, Israel, your mortal enemy? It's less than 150 miles from Damascus to Tel Aviv.

Hezbollah has to also think it would be a target, if only from an 'oops' missile meant for Syria. They would love nothing more than rain some missiles on Israel.

Exactly. And Israel has nukes. If Syria starts dropping gas on them they will respond with their own WMD. If you are willing to assume that Syria would gas their own people then it's not a stretch at all to assume that they would use them against their perceived enemies as well when their back is up against the wall.

vygramul:Not a lot of cases of the US bombing someone and not putting boots on the ground that resulted in a larger conflict, even in more volatile situations. Yugoslavia was a way better traditional ally of Russia. Yet an extensive, months-long campaign and the Russians sat there like biatches. No way they give more of a shiat about non-slavic peoples.

Yugoslavia was a NATO operation and Russia was still recovering from Soviet collapse. Not the same situation.

Syria is a long-time ally of Russia and is extremely important to their energy interests in the ME. There is an old saying that "he who controls Syria controls the world". Obviously not as true today but still underscores their strategic importance. Russia also has a naval base in Syria.

Also, Syria and Iran are Russia's last satellite countries in the region. And Iran has watched itself slowly be surrounded by US military over the past 10+ years. If Syria falls, Iran would be completely isolated.

The threats of Syria, Hezbollah, and Iran could be hollow but I sincerely doubt it.

PsiChick:vygramul: PsiChick: TrollingForColumbine: PsiChick: UN inspectors. They have a job. Let them farking do it

UN inspectors only determine if CW was used. Not who used them.

The UN Security Council only determines if action should be taken, too...

And they decided not to do anything in Rwanda. How noble of them.

Or is it just possible that morality and the UN are not the same thing?

Obviously. But you know what the answer is when the rule of law and morality aren't the same thing? Fix the laws. Not 'run off on your own playing Batman'. That goes for people and countries.

If there was a central government of the planet with authority, that would be the process. But that's not what Earth has. The articles of confederation had more bite. You cannot fix the laws when there is no one to enforce them on everyone in an unbiased and just manner.

cirrhosis_and_halitosis:vygramul: Not a lot of cases of the US bombing someone and not putting boots on the ground that resulted in a larger conflict, even in more volatile situations. Yugoslavia was a way better traditional ally of Russia. Yet an extensive, months-long campaign and the Russians sat there like biatches. No way they give more of a shiat about non-slavic peoples.

Yugoslavia was a NATO operation and Russia was still recovering from Soviet collapse. Not the same situation.

Syria is a long-time ally of Russia and is extremely important to their energy interests in the ME. There is an old saying that "he who controls Syria controls the world". Obviously not as true today but still underscores their strategic importance. Russia also has a naval base in Syria.

Also, Syria and Iran are Russia's last satellite countries in the region. And Iran has watched itself slowly be surrounded by US military over the past 10+ years. If Syria falls, Iran would be completely isolated.

The threats of Syria, Hezbollah, and Iran could be hollow but I sincerely doubt it.

Iran is not Russia's satellite. Iran hates Russia almost as much as they hate us, and just as much as they hate the UK.

The threats of Syria, Hezbollah, and Iran are more hollow than that disappointing chocolate bunny people give their kids every Easter.

This text is now purple:Subtle_Canary: When the Korean War kicked off it was a UN free for all against a nation that had just been bent over a table by the Japanese. It didnt become a real issue until HERE COMES A NEW CHALLENGER happened that drove us out.

"Drove us out"?

Yes, drove us out. As in we had invaded and conquered North Korea, a separate country, and then got pushed back to the pre war DMZ line. You will notice that there are no US installations north of the 38th Parallel.

vygramul:PsiChick: vygramul: PsiChick: TrollingForColumbine: PsiChick: UN inspectors. They have a job. Let them farking do it

UN inspectors only determine if CW was used. Not who used them.

The UN Security Council only determines if action should be taken, too...

And they decided not to do anything in Rwanda. How noble of them.

Or is it just possible that morality and the UN are not the same thing?

Obviously. But you know what the answer is when the rule of law and morality aren't the same thing? Fix the laws. Not 'run off on your own playing Batman'. That goes for people and countries.

If there was a central government of the planet with authority, that would be the process. But that's not what Earth has. The articles of confederation had more bite. You cannot fix the laws when there is no one to enforce them on everyone in an unbiased and just manner.

So why not create a real international court of law, then? It's not like we don't have the political clout or money to do it.

dionysusaur:Here's something like a thought: what if we ripped up the regional map drawn by the colonial powers for the stated purpose of keeping things simmering, and drew a new one on ethnic/sectarian lines?

Becayue it would be the epitome of futility. Once new lines have been drawn they'll keep on fighting based on those ethnic/sectarian lines. Add the fact that they'll all want the resources of the region, both natural and infrastructure, and you'll see that all it would accomplish is the addition of a few additional reasons to hate each other.

Youvygramul:Iran is not Russia's satellite. Iran hates Russia almost as much as they hate us, and just as much as they hate the UK.

The threats of Syria, Hezbollah, and Iran are more hollow than that disappointing chocolate bunny people give their kids every Easter.

Actually you're right. I did overstate by calling Iran a Russian satellite, although the Soviet Union has supported Iran in the past. Russian relations with Iran are actually pretty good at the moment: Why Russia stays loyal to Iran despite tensions

Regardless, Iran has a strategic alliance with Syria and will almost assuredly be drawn into any conflict with Syria.

DerAppie:dionysusaur: Here's something like a thought: what if we ripped up the regional map drawn by the colonial powers for the stated purpose of keeping things simmering, and drew a new one on ethnic/sectarian lines?

Becayue it would be the epitome of futility. Once new lines have been drawn they'll keep on fighting based on those ethnic/sectarian lines. Add the fact that they'll all want the resources of the region, both natural and infrastructure, and you'll see that all it would accomplish is the addition of a few additional reasons to hate each other.

I'd also love to see someone segregate the city population.

nah, draw up new map along ethnic lines, support the Kurds, and when they win, jack them for whats left. The Kurds will be too exhausted as a people to resist and nobody else in the region will have enough power anymore to stop you.

PsiChick:vygramul: PsiChick: vygramul: PsiChick: TrollingForColumbine: PsiChick: UN inspectors. They have a job. Let them farking do it

UN inspectors only determine if CW was used. Not who used them.

The UN Security Council only determines if action should be taken, too...

And they decided not to do anything in Rwanda. How noble of them.

Or is it just possible that morality and the UN are not the same thing?

Obviously. But you know what the answer is when the rule of law and morality aren't the same thing? Fix the laws. Not 'run off on your own playing Batman'. That goes for people and countries.

If there was a central government of the planet with authority, that would be the process. But that's not what Earth has. The articles of confederation had more bite. You cannot fix the laws when there is no one to enforce them on everyone in an unbiased and just manner.

So why not create a real international court of law, then? It's not like we don't have the political clout or money to do it.

We actually don't. To create such a court, everyone would have to give up some amount of sovereignty. You wouldn't get that past Teahaddists here, much less in Iran, China, and Russia.

cirrhosis_and_halitosis:Youvygramul: Iran is not Russia's satellite. Iran hates Russia almost as much as they hate us, and just as much as they hate the UK.

The threats of Syria, Hezbollah, and Iran are more hollow than that disappointing chocolate bunny people give their kids every Easter.

Actually you're right. I did overstate by calling Iran a Russian satellite, although the Soviet Union has supported Iran in the past. Russian relations with Iran are actually pretty good at the moment: Why Russia stays loyal to Iran despite tensions

Regardless, Iran has a strategic alliance with Syria and will almost assuredly be drawn into any conflict with Syria.

Want to put money on it? You're so certain, you should be willing to give me odds.

AllYourFarkAreBelongToMe:ciberido: AllYourFarkAreBelongToMe: He made a blanket statement (never a good idea) last year. And no. Even if congress wont give him approval, he's gonna act. His ego will allow nothing less. Did you forget that this guy spent nearly his entire first term doing nothing other than performing end-runs to get his beloved health-care plan rammed down the throats of the American people though the majority wanted none of it? You mark my words. Even without approval he's gonna do something. I mean? What else is a Nobel Peace Prize winner supposed to do other than start another war under these circumstances? Besides when all's said and done he'll just figure out a way to blame it on Bush and 90% of Fark will back him up on the claim. Now THAT would be brilliant. :-)

Yes, he rammed healthcare down your throat. Now suck it! Suck on the misery of being able to afford medical treatment! Isn't it humiliating?

"Now suck it!"

And there we have another well informed ad-hom attack from a typical Farker who wants something for nothing, believes it's actually possible, and projects his miserable life onto others. Expertly done!

I'll take ad-hominem attacks over pathetic strawmen like "wants something for nothing," although I think "projects his miserable life onto others" just might count as an ad-hominem in its own right.